Re: [VIC] Ill-informed NIMBYism can be more dangerous than trains "mowing down rows of houses and a school".

[amorton@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)]

Thomson Family <thomson@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>> Is there an opposing group to these idiots? Someone to support the link?
>> Lets hear their side of the story.

Well, on the positive side, the Community News reported as a footnote to
their main story on the opposition to the rail link, the fact that a survey
of residents in the corridor had found that a slight majority actually
supported the link going through Broadmeadows.  Naturally, the spokesman
for the opposition responded that they must have surveyed the wrong people!

>While not trying to be too critical of PTUA policy I find it rather ironic
>that the same people who are often encouraged to join protests against new
>freeways are the ones protesting against public transport improvements. What
>I believe is an unfortunate occurance at the moment is that the PTUA gets
>more publicity as a freeway protest group than a group lobbying for improved
>public transport. While I realise that money spent on roads is less money
>spent on rail, sometimes I just get sick and tired of protests and the
>NIMBYs that they attract.

Thankfully Vaughan has responded to this - it is PTUA policy to support the
extension of the Broadmeadows suburban line to the airport.  (Conversely it
is not PTUA policy to support special high speed trains running to the airport
on a dedicated track and terminating ten minutes' walk from the air terminal.)

You must understand though that the PTUA is fundamentally a community group
with a 'grass roots' constituency, not a corporate lobby group representing
the interests of rail enthusiasts.  It would be contrary to the PTUA's mission
to carry out an active campaign in the face of sustained community opposition.
Like it or not, there is substantial opposition to the current airport link
proposal; on the other hand, the state government is very keen for the airport
link to be built, so I think the PTUA considers it's the government's job to
allay the community's concerns by rethinking their proposal.  This leaves the
PTUA (with its scarce resources) to pursue campaigns that are no less
important but do not have active government support, like better country
buses, or a rail link to Rowville.  When a sensible proposal for an airport
link comes forward that doesn't scare the punters, I dare say the PTUA will
actively support it.

That the PTUA gets involved in so many anti-freeway campaigns is largely due
to the fact that at the bureaucratic level, the road lobby is always one step
ahead of the public transport proposals.  Actually, make that a million steps
ahead - most PT proposals have yet to be even considered by government at all.
But none of the PTUA's campaigns is as negative as you might think - for
every counterproductive freeway plan there is a more effective (and cheaper)
public transport alternative.  The problem is that there's always a more
urgent need to stop money being wasted on the bad things than to get the good
things started, because the bureaucratic weight is behind the former.

And of course, anti-freeway campaigns have all the attributes that the
pro-airport-rail campaign does not.  First of all, there is broad community
support (among both business and residents) for public transport alternatives
to freeways.  There is a sizeable portion of the community prepared to go
further, and actively oppose freeways if it means getting a cleaner
environment and better public transport.  And finally, anti-freeway campaigns
attract little broad-based opposition other than from the road lobby.  (When
was the last time you read of a public meeting, as opposed to a corporate
press release, that called for the immediate construction of the Scoresby
Freeway?)

Regards,
Tony M.